The New York Times is releasing a series of data files with cumulative counts of coronavirus cases in the United States, at the state and county level, over time. We are compiling this time series data from state and local governments and health departments in an attempt to provide a complete record of the ongoing outbreak.

Since the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020, The Times has tracked cases of coronavirus in real time as they were identified after testing. Because of the widespread shortage of testing, however, the data is necessarily limited in the picture it presents of the outbreak.

We have used this data to power our maps and reporting tracking the outbreak, and it is now being made available to the public in response to requests from researchers, scientists and government officials who would like access to the data to better understand the outbreak.

The data begins with the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020. We will publish regular updates to the data in this repository.

Identifying changes in the reproduction number, rate of spread, and doubling time during the course of the COVID-19 outbreak whilst accounting for potential biases due to delays in case reporting both nationally and subnationally in the United States of America. These results are impacted by changes in testing effort, increases and decreases in testing effort will increase and decrease reproduction number estimates respectively.

As of January 23, 2021, Vermont had the highest Rt value of any U.S. state. The Rt value indicates the average number of people that one person with COVID-19 is expected to infect. A number higher than one means each infected person is passing the virus to more than one other person.

Which are the hardest-hit states? The U.S. reported its first confirmed coronavirus case toward the end of January 2020. More than 28 million positive cases have since been recorded as of February 24, 2021 – California and Texas are the states with the highest number of coronavirus cases in the United States. When figures are adjusted to reflect each state’s population, North Dakota has the highest rate of coronavirus cases. The vaccine rollout has provided Americans with a significant morale boost, and California is the state with the highest number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered.

How have other nations responded? Countries around the world have responded to the pandemic in varied ways. The United Kingdom has approved three vaccines for emergency use and ranks among the countries with the highest number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered worldwide. In the Asia-Pacific region, the outbreak has been brought under control in New Zealand, and the country’s response to the pandemic has been widely praised.

As of March 10, 2023, the death rate from COVID-19 in the state of New York was 397 per 100,000 people. New York is one of the states with the highest number of COVID-19 cases.

Parameters for different states: The initial infection rate β, the detection rate η, the initial reproduction number R0 ≈ β/(η + α), the initial number of infected people on the day of the first confirmed death I(0), the first date that social distancing measures are effectively reducing the infection rate in number of days since SaH order dr, the current reduction in the infection rate r as a proportion of the initial reproduction number, the reproduction number after SaH orders , the day of the first death, and the date of the SaH order.

This dataset represents preliminary estimates of cumulative U.S. COVID-19 disease burden for the 2024-2025 period, including illnesses, outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. The weekly COVID-19-associated burden estimates are preliminary and based on continuously collected surveillance data from patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. The data come from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET), a surveillance platform that captures data from hospitals that serve about 10% of the U.S. population. Each week CDC estimates a range (i.e., lower estimate and an upper estimate) of COVID-19 -associated burden that have occurred since October 1, 2024.

Note: Data are preliminary and subject to change as more data become available. Rates for recent COVID-19-associated hospital admissions are subject to reporting delays; as new data are received each week, previous rates are updated accordingly.

References

1. Reed C, Chaves SS, Daily Kirley P, et al. Estimating influenza disease burden from population-based surveillance data in the United States. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0118369. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118369 
2. Rolfes, MA, Foppa, IM, Garg, S, et al. Annual estimates of the burden of seasonal influenza in the United States: A tool for strengthening influenza surveillance and preparedness. Influenza Other Respi Viruses. 2018; 12: 132– 137. https://doi.org/10.1111/irv.12486
3. Tokars JI, Rolfes MA, Foppa IM, Reed C. An evaluation and update of methods for estimating the number of influenza cases averted by vaccination in the United States. Vaccine. 2018;36(48):7331-7337. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.10.026 
4. Collier SA, Deng L, Adam EA, Benedict KM, Beshearse EM, Blackstock AJ, Bruce BB, Derado G, Edens C, Fullerton KE, Gargano JW, Geissler AL, Hall AJ, Havelaar AH, Hill VR, Hoekstra RM, Reddy SC, Scallan E, Stokes EK, Yoder JS, Beach MJ. Estimate of Burden and Direct Healthcare Cost of Infectious Waterborne Disease in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 Jan;27(1):140-149. doi: 10.3201/eid2701.190676. PMID: 33350905; PMCID: PMC7774540.
5. Reed C, Kim IK, Singleton JA,  et al. Estimated influenza illnesses and hospitalizations averted by vaccination–United States, 2013-14 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 Dec 12;63(49):1151-4. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6349a2.htm 
6. Reed C, Angulo FJ, Swerdlow DL, et al. Estimates of the Prevalence of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009, United States, April–July 2009. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009;15(12):2004-2007. https://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1512.091413  
7. Devine O, Pham H, Gunnels B, et al. Extrapolating Sentinel Surveillance Information to Estimate National COVID-19 Hospital Admission Rates: A Bayesian Modeling Approach. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/irv.70026. Volume18, Issue10. October 2024.
8. https://www.cdc.gov/covid/php/covid-net/index.html">COVID-NET | COVID-19 | CDC 
9. https://www.cdc.gov/covid/hcp/clinical-care/systematic-review-process.html 
10. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac079/6604394?login=false">Excess natural-cause deaths in California by cause and setting: March 2020 through February 2021 | PNAS Nexus | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
11. Kruschke, J. K. 2011. Doing Bayesian data analysis: a tutorial with R and BUGS. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Section 3.3.5.

About the data

This is a covid19 data set from United States. It includes date, Number of cases, Number of deaths. The other countries data are also available in my Kaggle and Github profile. The links are provided below - Github - Kaggle If you want to read more about the data Click here

Updates

• Notice of data discontinuation: Since the start of the pandemic, AP has reported case and death counts from data provided by Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University has announced that they will stop their daily data collection efforts after March 10. As Johns Hopkins stops providing data, the AP will also stop collecting daily numbers for COVID cases and deaths. The HHS and CDC now collect and visualize key metrics for the pandemic. AP advises using those resources when reporting on the pandemic going forward.

  • CDC Weekly case and death counts (national and state level)
  • CDC County level cases and deaths
  • HHS New hospital admissions
  • CDC NowCast COVID variant proportions (national and regional level)

• April 9, 2020

  • The population estimate data for New York County, NY has been updated to include all five New York City counties (Kings County, Queens County, Bronx County, Richmond County and New York County). This has been done to match the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 data, which aggregates counts for the five New York City counties to New York County.

• April 20, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins death totals in the US now include confirmed and probable deaths in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14. One significant result of this change was an increase of more than 3,700 deaths in the New York City count. This change will likely result in increases for death counts elsewhere as well. The AP does not alter the Johns Hopkins source data, so probable deaths are included in this dataset as well.

• April 29, 2020

  • The AP is now providing timeseries data for counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The raw counts are provided here unaltered, along with a population column with Census ACS-5 estimates and calculated daily case and death rates per 100,000 people. Please read the updated caveats section for more information.

• September 1st, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins is now providing counts for the five New York City counties individually.

• February 12, 2021

  • The Ohio Department of Health recently announced that as many as 4,000 COVID-19 deaths may have been underreported through the state’s reporting system, and that the "daily reported death counts will be high for a two to three-day period."
  • Because deaths data will be anomalous for consecutive days, we have chosen to freeze Ohio's rolling average for daily deaths at the last valid measure until Johns Hopkins is able to back-distribute the data. The raw daily death counts, as reported by Johns Hopkins and including the backlogged death data, will still be present in the new_deaths column.

• February 16, 2021

  - Johns Hopkins has reconciled Ohio's historical deaths data with the state.

  Overview

The AP is using data collected by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering as our source for outbreak caseloads and death counts for the United States and globally.

The Hopkins data is available at the county level in the United States. The AP has paired this data with population figures and county rural/urban designations, and has calculated caseload and death rates per 100,000 people. Be aware that caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.

This data is from the Hopkins dashboard that is updated regularly throughout the day. Like all organizations dealing with data, Hopkins is constantly refining and cleaning up their feed, so there may be brief moments where data does not appear correctly. At this link, you’ll find the Hopkins daily data reports, and a clean version of their feed.

The AP is updating this dataset hourly at 45 minutes past the hour.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

Queries

Use AP's queries to filter the data or to join to other datasets we've made available to help cover the coronavirus pandemic

• Filter cases by state here

• Rank states by their status as current hotspots. Calculates the 7-day rolling average of new cases per capita in each state: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=481e82a4-1b2f-41c2-9ea1-d91aa4b3b1ac

• Find recent hotspots within your state by running a query to calculate the 7-day rolling average of new cases by capita in each county: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=b566f1db-3231-40fe-8099-311909b7b687&showTemplatePreview=true

• Join county-level case data to an earlier dataset released by AP on local hospital capacity here. To find out more about the hospital capacity dataset, see the full details.

• Pull the 100 counties with the highest per-capita confirmed cases here

• Rank all the counties by the highest per-capita rate of new cases in the past 7 days here. Be aware that because this ranks per-capita caseloads, very small counties may rise to the very top, so take into account raw caseload figures as well.

Interactive

The AP has designed an interactive map to track COVID-19 cases reported by Johns Hopkins.

@(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/15/)

Interactive Embed Code

<iframe title="USA counties (2018) choropleth map Mapping COVID-19 cases by county" aria-describedby="" id="datawrapper-chart-nRyaf" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/10/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() {'use strict';window.addEventListener('message', function(event) {if (typeof event.data['datawrapper-height'] !== 'undefined') {for (var chartId in event.data['datawrapper-height']) {var iframe = document.getElementById('datawrapper-chart-' + chartId) || document.querySelector("iframe[src*='" + chartId + "']");if (!iframe) {continue;}iframe.style.height = event.data['datawrapper-height'][chartId] + 'px';}}});})();</script>

Caveats

• This data represents the number of cases and deaths reported by each state and has been collected by Johns Hopkins from a number of sources cited on their website.
• In some cases, deaths or cases of people who've crossed state lines -- either to receive treatment or because they became sick and couldn't return home while traveling -- are reported in a state they aren't currently in, because of state reporting rules.
• In some states, there are a number of cases not assigned to a specific county -- for those cases, the county name is "unassigned to a single county"
• This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University's COVID-19 tracking project. The AP is simply making it available here for ease of use for reporters and members.
• Caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.
• Population estimates at the county level are drawn from 2014-18 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey.
• The Urban/Rural classification scheme is from the Center for Disease Control and Preventions's National Center for Health Statistics. It puts each county into one of six categories -- from Large Central Metro to Non-Core -- according to population and other characteristics. More details about the classifications can be found here.

Johns Hopkins timeseries data - Johns Hopkins pulls data regularly to update their dashboard. Once a day, around 8pm EDT, Johns Hopkins adds the counts for all areas they cover to the timeseries file. These counts are snapshots of the latest cumulative counts provided by the source on that day. This can lead to inconsistencies if a source updates their historical data for accuracy, either increasing or decreasing the latest cumulative count. - Johns Hopkins periodically edits their historical timeseries data for accuracy. They provide a file documenting all errors in their timeseries files that they have identified and fixed here

Attribution

This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 tracking project

The COVID Tracking Project collects information from 50 US states, the District of Columbia, and 5 other US territories to provide the most comprehensive testing data we can collect for the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. We attempt to include positive and negative results, pending tests, and total people tested for each state or district currently reporting that data.

Testing is a crucial part of any public health response, and sharing test data is essential to understanding this outbreak. The CDC is currently not publishing complete testing data, so we’re doing our best to collect it from each state and provide it to the public. The information is patchy and inconsistent, so we’re being transparent about what we find and how we handle it—the spreadsheet includes our live comments about changing data and how we’re working with incomplete information.

From here, you can also learn about our methodology, see who makes this, and find out what information states provide and how we handle it.

2019 Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 (2019-nCoV) Visual Dashboard and Map:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

• Confirmed Cases by Country/Region/Sovereignty
• Confirmed Cases by Province/State/Dependency
• Deaths
• Recovered

Downloadable data:
https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19

Additional Information about the Visual Dashboard:
https://systems.jhu.edu/research/public-health/ncov

COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Correction on 6/1/2020Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Reasons for undertaking this work:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-30 days + 5% from past 31-56 days - total deaths.We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source used as basis:Stephen A. Lauer, MS, PhD *; Kyra H. Grantz, BA *; Qifang Bi, MHS; Forrest K. Jones, MPH; Qulu Zheng, MHS; Hannah R. Meredith, PhD; Andrew S. Azman, PhD; Nicholas G. Reich, PhD; Justin Lessler, PhD. 2020. The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of Internal Medicine DOI: 10.7326/M20-0504.New Cases per Day (NCD) = Measures the daily spread of COVID-19. This is the basis for all rates. Back-casting revisions: In the Johns Hopkins’ data, the structure is to provide the cumulative number of cases per day, which presumes an ever-increasing sequence of numbers, e.g., 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,7, etc. However, revisions do occur and would look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,6. To accommodate this, we revised the lists to eliminate decreases, which make this list look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,6,6,6.Reporting Interval: In the early weeks, Johns Hopkins' data provided reporting every day regardless of change. In late April, this changed allowing for days to be skipped if no new data was available. The day was still included, but the value of total cases was set to Null. The processing therefore was updated to include tracking of the spacing between intervals with valid values.100 News Cases in a day as a spike threshold: Empirically, this is based on COVID-19’s rate of spread, or r0 of ~2.5, which indicates each case will infect between two and three other people. There is a point at which each administrative area’s capacity will not have the resources to trace and account for all contacts of each patient. Thus, this is an indicator of uncontrolled or epidemic trend. Spiking activity in combination with the rate of new cases is the basis for determining whether an area has a spreading or epidemic trend (see below). Source used as basis:World Health Organization (WHO). 16-24 Feb 2020. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Obtained online.Mean of Recent Tail of NCD = Empirical, and a COVID-19-specific basis for establishing a recent trend. The recent mean of NCD is taken from the most recent fourteen days. A minimum of 21 days of cases is required for analysis but cannot be considered reliable. Thus, a preference of 42 days of cases ensures much higher reliability. This analysis is not explanatory and thus, merely represents a likely trend. The tail is analyzed for the following:Most recent 2 days: In terms of likelihood, this does not mean much, but can indicate a reason for hope and a basis to share positive change that is not yet a trend. There are two worthwhile indicators:Last 2 days count of new cases is less than any in either the past five or 14 days. Past 2 days has only one or fewer new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 5 days or 14 days. Most recent 5 days: In terms of likelihood, this is more meaningful, as it does represent at short-term trend. There are five worthwhile indicators:Past five days is greater than past 2 days and past 14 days indicates the potential of the past 2 days being an aberration. Past five days is greater than past 14 days and less than past 2 days indicates slight positive trend, but likely still within peak trend time frame.Past five days is less than the past 14 days. This means a downward trend. This would be an

Deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by month of death, region, age, place of death, and race and Hispanic origin.

NOTE: As of 2/16/2023, this page is not being updated. For data on updated (bivalent) COVID-19 booster vaccination click here: https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiODNhYzVkNGYtMzZkMy00YzA3LWJhYzUtYTVkOWFlZjllYTVjIiwidCI6IjExOGI3Y2ZhLWEzZGQtNDhiOS1iMDI2LTMxZmY2OWJiNzM4YiJ9 This table shows the number and percent of people that have initiated COVID-19 vaccination and are fully vaccinated by CT census tract (including residents of all ages). It also shows the number of people who have not received vaccine and who are not yet fully vaccinated. All data in this report are preliminary; data for previous dates will be updated as new reports are received and data errors are corrected. A person who has received at least one dose of any vaccine is considered to have initiated vaccination. A person is considered fully vaccinated if they have completed a primary series by receiving 2 doses of the Pfizer, Novavax or Moderna vaccines or 1 dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The fully vaccinated are a subset of the number who have received at least one dose. The percent with at least one dose many be over-estimated and the percent fully vaccinated may be under-estimated because of vaccine administration records for individuals that cannot be linked because of differences in how names or date of birth are reported. Population data obtained from the 2019 Census ACS (www.census.gov) Geocoding is used to determine the census tract in which a person lives. People for who a census tract cannot be determined based on available address data are not included in this table. DPH recommends that these data are primarily used to identify areas that require additional attention rather than to establish and track the exact level of vaccine coverage. Census tract coverage estimates can play an important role in planning and evaluating vaccination strategies. However, inaccuracies in the data that are inherent to population surveillance may be magnified when analyses are performed down to the census tract level. We make every effort to provide accurate data, but inaccuracies may result from things like incomplete or inaccurate addresses, duplicate records, and sampling error in the American Community Survey that is used to estimate census tract population size and composition. These things may result in overestimates or underestimates of vaccine coverage. Some census tracts are suppressed. This is done if the number of people vaccinated is less than 5 or if the census population estimate is considered unreliable (coefficient of variance > 30%). Coverage estimates over 100% are shown as 100%. Connecticut COVID-19 Vaccine Program providers are required to report information on all COVID-19 vaccine doses administered to CT WiZ, the Connecticut Immunization Information System. Data on doses administered to CT residents out-of-state are being added to CT WiZ jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction. Doses administered by some Federal entities (including Department of Defense, Department of Correction, Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Indian Health Service) are not yet reported to CT WiZ. Data reported here reflect the vaccination records currently reported to CT WiZ. Caution should be used when interpreting coverage estimates in towns with large college/university populations since coverage may be underestimated. In the census, college/university students who live on or just off campus would be counted in the college/university town. However, if a student was vaccinated while studying remotely in his/her hometown, the student may be counted as a vaccine recipient in that town. As part of continuous data quality improvement efforts, duplicate records were removed from the COVID-19 vaccination data during the weeks of 4/19/2021 and 4/26/2021. As of 1/13/2021, census tract level data are provider by town for all ages. Data by age group is no longer available.

Compilation of published Ro estimates.

As global communities responded to COVID-19, we heard from public health officials that the same type of aggregated, anonymized insights we use in products such as Google Maps would be helpful as they made critical decisions to combat COVID-19. These Community Mobility Reports aimed to provide insights into what changed in response to policies aimed at combating COVID-19. The reports charted movement trends over time by geography, across different categories of places such as retail and recreation, groceries and pharmacies, parks, transit stations, workplaces, and residential.

Overview

The Associated Press is sharing data from the COVID Impact Survey, which provides statistics about physical health, mental health, economic security and social dynamics related to the coronavirus pandemic in the United States.

Conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Data Foundation, the probability-based survey provides estimates for the United States as a whole, as well as in 10 states (California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, Oregon and Texas) and eight metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Phoenix and Pittsburgh).

The survey is designed to allow for an ongoing gauge of public perception, health and economic status to see what is shifting during the pandemic. When multiple sets of data are available, it will allow for the tracking of how issues ranging from COVID-19 symptoms to economic status change over time.

The survey is focused on three core areas of research:

• Physical Health: Symptoms related to COVID-19, relevant existing conditions and health insurance coverage.
• Economic and Financial Health: Employment, food security, and government cash assistance.
• Social and Mental Health: Communication with friends and family, anxiety and volunteerism. (Questions based on those used on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.) ## Using this Data - IMPORTANT This is survey data and must be properly weighted during analysis: DO NOT REPORT THIS DATA AS RAW OR AGGREGATE NUMBERS!!

Instead, use our queries linked below or statistical software such as R or SPSS to weight the data.

Queries

If you'd like to create a table to see how people nationally or in your state or city feel about a topic in the survey, use the survey questionnaire and codebook to match a question (the variable label) to a variable name. For instance, "How often have you felt lonely in the past 7 days?" is variable "soc5c".

Nationally: Go to this query and enter soc5c as the variable. Hit the blue Run Query button in the upper right hand corner.

Local or State: To find figures for that response in a specific state, go to this query and type in a state name and soc5c as the variable, and then hit the blue Run Query button in the upper right hand corner.

The resulting sentence you could write out of these queries is: "People in some states are less likely to report loneliness than others. For example, 66% of Louisianans report feeling lonely on none of the last seven days, compared with 52% of Californians. Nationally, 60% of people said they hadn't felt lonely."

Margin of Error

The margin of error for the national and regional surveys is found in the attached methods statement. You will need the margin of error to determine if the comparisons are statistically significant. If the difference is:

• At least twice the margin of error, you can report there is a clear difference.
• At least as large as the margin of error, you can report there is a slight or apparent difference.
• Less than or equal to the margin of error, you can report that the respondents are divided or there is no difference. ## A Note on Timing Survey results will generally be posted under embargo on Tuesday evenings. The data is available for release at 1 p.m. ET Thursdays.

About the Data

The survey data will be provided under embargo in both comma-delimited and statistical formats.

Each set of survey data will be numbered and have the date the embargo lifts in front of it in the format of: 01_April_30_covid_impact_survey. The survey has been organized by the Data Foundation, a non-profit non-partisan think tank, and is sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the Packard Foundation. It is conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, a non-partisan research organization. (NORC is not an abbreviation, it part of the organization's formal name.)

Data for the national estimates are collected using the AmeriSpeak Panel, NORC’s probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. household population. Interviews are conducted with adults age 18 and over representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Panel members are randomly drawn from AmeriSpeak with a target of achieving 2,000 interviews in each survey. Invited panel members may complete the survey online or by telephone with an NORC telephone interviewer.

Once all the study data have been made final, an iterative raking process is used to adjust for any survey nonresponse as well as any noncoverage or under and oversampling resulting from the study specific sample design. Raking variables include age, gender, census division, race/ethnicity, education, and county groupings based on county level counts of the number of COVID-19 deaths. Demographic weighting variables were obtained from the 2020 Current Population Survey. The count of COVID-19 deaths by county was obtained from USA Facts. The weighted data reflect the U.S. population of adults age 18 and over.

Data for the regional estimates are collected using a multi-mode address-based (ABS) approach that allows residents of each area to complete the interview via web or with an NORC telephone interviewer. All sampled households are mailed a postcard inviting them to complete the survey either online using a unique PIN or via telephone by calling a toll-free number. Interviews are conducted with adults age 18 and over with a target of achieving 400 interviews in each region in each survey.Additional details on the survey methodology and the survey questionnaire are attached below or can be found at https://www.covid-impact.org.

Attribution

Results should be credited to the COVID Impact Survey, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for the Data Foundation.

AP Data Distributions

​To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

Context

Estimates of excess deaths can provide information about the burden of mortality potentially related to COVID-19, beyond the number of deaths that are directly attributed to COVID-19.

Content

Estimates of excess deaths can provide information about the burden of mortality potentially related to COVID-19, beyond the number of deaths that are directly attributed to COVID-19. Excess deaths are typically defined as the difference between observed numbers of deaths and expected numbers. This visualization provides weekly data on excess deaths by the jurisdiction of occurrence. Counts of deaths in more recent weeks are compared with historical trends to determine whether the number of deaths is significantly higher than expected.

Estimates of excess deaths can be calculated in a variety of ways and will vary depending on the methodology and assumptions about how many deaths are expected to occur. Estimates of excess deaths presented in this webpage were calculated using Farrington surveillance algorithms (1). For each jurisdiction, a model is used to generate a set of expected counts, and the upper bound of the 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) of these expected counts is used as a threshold to estimate excess deaths. Observed counts are compared to these upper bound estimates to determine whether a significant increase in deaths has occurred. Provisional counts are weighted to account for potential underreporting in the most recent weeks. However, data for the most recent week(s) are still likely to be incomplete. Only about 60% of deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, and there is considerable variation by jurisdiction. More detail about the methods, weighting, data, and limitations can be found in the Technical Notes.

• Source: data.cdc.gov
• Publisher: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cdc.gov
• Homepage URL: https://data.cdc.gov/d/xkkf-xrst
• License: https://www.usa.gov/government-works
• Contact Email: cdcinfo@cdc.gov
• Public Access Level: Public

Additional information

Dashboard: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kabartay/kaggle-datasets-supports/master/images/WeeklyExcessDeaths.png%20=1349x572" alt="">

Acknowledgements

Thanks to:
- data.cdc.gov - healthdata.gov

References

• Noufaily A, Enki DG, Farrington P, Garthwaite P, Andrews N, Charlett A. An Improved Algorithm for Outbreak Detection in Multiple Surveillance Systems. Statistics in Medicine 2012;32(7):1206-1222.
• Salmon M, Schumacher D, Hohle M. Monitoring Count Time Series in R: Aberration Detection in Public Health Surveillance. Journal of Statistical Software 2016;70(10):1-35.
• Rue H, Martino S, Chopin N. Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models using integrated nested Laplace approximations (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 2009;71(2):319-392.
• Spencer MR, Ahmad F. Timeliness of death certificate data for mortality surveillance and provisional estimates. National Center for Health Statistics. 2016. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/report001.pdf.pdf icon

Daily situation for Tennessee counties as reported by the Tennessee Department of Health. The data are posted on the department's coronavirus disease web page: https://www.tn.gov/health/cedep/ncov.html. Date on testing results and deaths was posted beginning March 31, 2020.CountyNS (County GNIS code)NAMELSAD (Legal/statistical area) -County of residence of COVID-19 casesCounty identifier (GEOID) - County FIPS codeCombined statistical area code (CBSAFP) - Metropolitan/Micropolitan Area codeCore-based area name (CBSA_TITLE) - Metropolitan/Micropolitan Area nameCore-based statistical area type (MSA_TYPE) - Core-based statistical area typeCore-based area county type (MSA_COUNTY_TYPE) - Type of county in core-based statistical areasHealth Department Region (HEALTH_DEPT_REG)Health Department Type (HEALTH_DEPT_TYPE)TN ECD Urban Rural Classification (ECD_URBAN_RURAL_CLASS)Positive Tests (TEST_POS) - Total number of people ever to test positive for COVID-19Negative Tests (TEST_NEG) - Total number of people with a negative COVID-19 test resultTotal Tests (TEST_TOT) - Total number of COVID-19 tests with reported resultNew Tests (TEST_NEW) - Number of new tests results posted since the previous dayTotal Cases (CASES_TOT) - Total number of people ever to have a confirmed or probably case of COVID-19 by countyNew Cases (CASES_NEW) - The number of new cases reported to have a confirmed case of COVID-19 since the report on the previous dayTotal Hospitalizations (HOSPITALIZED_TOT) - Number of patients that were ever hospitalized during their illness, it does not indicate the number of patients currently hospitalizeNew Hospitalizations (HOSPITALIZED_NEW) - Number of patients that were ever hospitalized in the previous 24-hour period. Does not indicate the number of patients currently hospitalizedTotal Recovered (RECOV_TOT) - Total Number of inactive/recovered COVID cases. Includes people 14 days beyond illness onset date, specimen collection date, investigation report date, or investigation start date.New Recovered (RECOV_NEW) - Change in the number of new inactive/recovered cases since the previous day.Total Deaths (DEATHS_TOT) - Number of COVID-19 related deaths that were ever reported by countyNew Deaths (DEATHS_NEW) - Number of COVID-19 related deaths that were reported since the previous dayActive Cases (ACTIVE_TOT) - Calculated as the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases, less the number of recovered and deaths reportedNew Active Cases (ACTIVE_NEW) - Change in the number of active COVID-19 cases since the previous dayPopulation Estimate 2019 (POPESTIMATE2019) - 2019 vintage estimated population for counties by the U.S. Census BureauNOWcast Current (NOWCast_CURRENT) - UTK COVID-19 NOWCast estimate of the number of new daily casesEffective Rate Transmission (EffectiveR) - Effective reproduction or R is an estimate of the average number of new infections caused by a single infected individualEffect Rate Transmission Label (EffectiveR_LABEL)

This dataset represents preliminary weekly estimates of cumulative U.S. COVID-19-associated hospitalizations for the 2024-2025 period. The weekly cumulatve COVID-19 –associated hospitalization estimates are preliminary, and use reported weekly hospitalizations among laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. The data are updated week-by-week as new COVID-19 hospitalizations are reported to CDC from the COVID-NET system and include both new admissions that occurred during the reporting week, as well as those admitted in previous weeks that may not have been included in earlier reporting. Each week CDC estimates a range (i.e., lower estimate and an upper estimate) of COVID-19 -associated hospitalizations that have occurred since October 1, 2024. For details, please refer to the publication [7].

Note: Data are preliminary and subject to change as more data become available. Rates for recent COVID-19-associated hospital admissions are subject to reporting delays; as new data are received each week, previous rates are updated accordingly.

References

1. Reed C, Chaves SS, Daily Kirley P, et al. Estimating influenza disease burden from population-based surveillance data in the United States. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0118369. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118369 
2. Rolfes, MA, Foppa, IM, Garg, S, et al. Annual estimates of the burden of seasonal influenza in the United States: A tool for strengthening influenza surveillance and preparedness. Influenza Other Respi Viruses. 2018; 12: 132– 137. https://doi.org/10.1111/irv.12486
3. Tokars JI, Rolfes MA, Foppa IM, Reed C. An evaluation and update of methods for estimating the number of influenza cases averted by vaccination in the United States. Vaccine. 2018;36(48):7331-7337. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.10.026 
4. Collier SA, Deng L, Adam EA, Benedict KM, Beshearse EM, Blackstock AJ, Bruce BB, Derado G, Edens C, Fullerton KE, Gargano JW, Geissler AL, Hall AJ, Havelaar AH, Hill VR, Hoekstra RM, Reddy SC, Scallan E, Stokes EK, Yoder JS, Beach MJ. Estimate of Burden and Direct Healthcare Cost of Infectious Waterborne Disease in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 Jan;27(1):140-149. doi: 10.3201/eid2701.190676. PMID: 33350905; PMCID: PMC7774540.
5. Reed C, Kim IK, Singleton JA,  et al. Estimated influenza illnesses and hospitalizations averted by vaccination–United States, 2013-14 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 Dec 12;63(49):1151-4. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6349a2.htm 
6. Reed C, Angulo FJ, Swerdlow DL, et al. Estimates of the Prevalence of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009, United States, April–July 2009. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009;15(12):2004-2007. https://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1512.091413  
7. Devine O, Pham H, Gunnels B, et al. Extrapolating Sentinel Surveillance Information to Estimate National COVID-19 Hospital Admission Rates: A Bayesian Modeling Approach. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/irv.70026. Volume18, Issue10. October 2024.
8. https://www.cdc.gov/covid/php/covid-net/index.html">COVID-NET | COVID-19 | CDC 
9. https://www.cdc.gov/covid/hcp/clinical-care/systematic-review-process.html 
10. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac079/6604394?login=false">Excess natural-cause deaths in California by cause and setting: March 2020 through February 2021 | PNAS Nexus | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
11. Kruschke, J. K. 2011. Doing Bayesian data analysis: a tutorial with R and BUGS. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Section 3.3.5.

Introduction

Intensive care has played a pivotal role during the COVID-19 pandemic as many patients developed severe pulmonary complications. The availability of information in pediatric intensive care (PICUs) remains limited. The purpose of this study is to characterize COVID-19 positive admissions (CPAs) in the United States and to determine factors that may impact those admissions.

Materials and Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the COVID-19 dashboard virtual pediatric system) containing information regarding respiratory support and comorbidities for all CPAs between March and April 2020. The state level data contained 13 different factors from population density, comorbid conditions and social distancing score. The absolute CPAs count was converted to frequency using the state’s population. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to assess the association between CPAs frequency and endpoints.

Results

A total of 205 CPAs were reported by 167 PICUs across 48 states. The estimated CPAs frequency was 2.8 per million children. A total of 3,235 tests were conducted with 6.3% positive tests. Children above 11 years of age comprised 69.7% of the total cohort and 35.1% had moderated or severe comorbidities. The median duration of a CPA was 4.9 days [1.25-12.00 days]. Out of the 1,132 total CPA days, 592 [52.2%] were for mechanical ventilation. The inpatient mortalities were 3 [1.4%]. Multivariate analyses demonstrated an association between CPAs with greater population density [beta-coefficient 0.01, p<0.01] and increased percent of children receiving the influenza vaccination [beta-coefficient 0.17, p=0.01].

Conclusions

Inpatient mortality during PICU CPAs is relatively low at 1.4%. CPA frequency seems to be impacted by population density while characteristics of illness severity appear to be associated with ultraviolet index, temperature, and comorbidities such as Type 1 diabetes. These factors should be included in future studies using patient-level data.

Methods This study utilized only publicly available, deidentified, state-level data. As such, no institutional review board review or approval was sought.

Endpoint identification and data collection

The following data was identified for collection regarding the CPAs themselves: number, duration, need for various ventilatory support measures, severity of comorbidities, and the total number of COVID-19 tests conducted. The following data was collected regarding US states: pediatric population, state population (pediatric and adult) density, air and drinking water quality, average temperature, average ultraviolet index, prevalence of pediatric obesity, type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) and asthma, the proportion of children who smoke cigarettes, received the influenza vaccine, had health insurance, and received home health care, race, percent of households with children below the poverty line, highest education level of adults in homes with children, and the social distancing score by global positional satellite data (Supplementary Table 1).

The data regarding the CPAs themselves was collected from the publicly available COVID-19 dashboard provided by the Virtual Pediatric System (VPS), which collects data from several PICUs in the US. COVID-19 data was collected from March 14th through April 14th, 2020, in order to represent one full month of data. Data regarding number of centers, number of tests, and number of CPAs was captured in absolute counts. Data regarding CPAs duration was collected in days. The respiratory support modalities for which data was available were room air (RA), nasal cannula (NC) and for the advanced respiratory support modalities (i.e. other than RA and NC) there was available data for high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), conventional mechanical ventilation (MCV), high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and was captured in duration (days) of their use. Data regarding severity of comorbidities is reported in the VPS dashboard and the percentage of CPAs with moderate or severe degree of comorbidities was collected.

State-wide data for the analyses were collected from a variety of sources with the complete list of sources provided as Supplementary Material 1. Children’s population data and pediatric comorbidity data was obtained from 2018, as these were the most recent and comprehensive data available. The sources for these other data points were generally US government-based efforts to capture state-level data on various medical issues, however, not all states reported data for all the endpoints (Supplementary Table 2).

Endpoints were assigned to the authors for collection. One author was responsible for collecting data for each state for the variables assigned. Once these data were collected a different author, who did not primarily collect data for that specific endpoint, verified the numbers for accuracy. Finally, values in the top and bottom 10th percentile were identified and verified by a third author.

Statistical analyses

As the data was collected for each state and intended for state-level analyses, and each state has a different pediatric population, the absolute numbers of CPAs for each state were not directly comparable. Thus, the absolute CPAs count for each state was first converted to a frequency of CPAs per 1,000,000 children using the specific state’s population. This CPAs frequency was then used as the dependent variable in a series of single-independent variable linear regressions to determine the univariate association between CPAs frequency and the other endpoints. Multivariate regression was conducted with CPAs frequency as the dependent variable and with other variables entered as independent variables. Forward stepwise regression was utilized with the model with greatest R-squared value being used for the analyses.

Next, a composite endpoint called “percent of PICUs days requiring advanced respiratory support” was created. This consisted of the total duration of HFNC, NIPPV, MCV, HFOV, and ECMO divided by the total PICUs admission duration. This was then modeled similarly to CPAs frequency. Next, a composite outcome called “percent of PICU days requiring intubation” was created. This consisted of the total duration of MCV and HFOV divided by the total PICU admission duration. This, too, was then modeled similarly as CPA frequency. Lastly, an endpoint called “PICUs duration per admission” was created for each state and consisted of the total CPAs PICUs duration for that specific state divided by the number of CPAs reported by that state. This was also then modeled similarly to CPA frequency.

All statistical analyses were done using the user-coded, syntax-based interface of SPSS Version 23.0. A p-value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were done at the state-level with state-level data. Analyses were not conducted at a patient-level with patient-level data. Any use of the word significant here-on in the manuscript refers to “statistically significant” unless explicitly specified otherwise.